Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Scabby Joe]

So much bluster!

My argument is that reducing intensive livestock production (regardless of whether we eat the meat or not, this is completely irrelevant to the issue of fertility and it's sources), would lead to increased reliance on petrochem.

I get what your argument is but you haven't supported it. As much as you enjoy bandstanding and making trite remarks, in your anger you cannot see the wood for the trees.

I do not need to come up with a alternative method of food production in every detail or risk losing the argument. I have presented an argument that it is not morally justified to eat meat because it causes unnecessary suffering. You are suggesting that the suffering is not unnecessary becuse were we to switch to a vegetarian diet, there woudl be an even greater reliance on petrochem and that would cause even more suffering. But you haven't supported this claim at all.

You seem to have some knowledge on the subject, but do not seem to be an expert. I'm no expert and so I turn to reputable sources. Amongst these are the United Nations and the institutions of the European Union.





http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/p...Report.pdf

http://ftp.ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0...701E07.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...-emissions

Now these institutions are producing reports based on scientific studies. They are concerned for the environment and about the huge impact the livestock sector has. They advocate EATING LESS OR NO MEAT. If they thought that eating less or no meat was bad for the environment, they wouldn't suggest it, would they?

Now, you may disagree. You may accuse me of arguing with myself blah blah but I'm not going to listen to you unless you can appeal to some authority on the subject. Otherwise, it's just hot air.

You can portray me as some lunatic if that helps you feel better. You can play to a sympathetic audience here too caught up in self-interest to actually consider the arguments, but the facts speak for themselves. If experts advise eating less meat is a positive step forward, to my mind your unfounded claim that even greater environmental damage would follow does not mean eating meat is necessary, but quite definitely unnecessary and therefore immoral.

---

When chickens organize and demonstrate for rights like blacks and women did then I will consider their petition. Until then, pass the barbeque sauce.

Nice thought. Of course your joke works on the basis that chickens cannot vocalise their objections, even if they had the intelligence to do so. A bit like the mentally retarded, the senile, the insane etc. These are all groups that cannot protest but we are morally obliged to consider their interests becuse they have a capacity to suufer and feel pain as we do. Your rather weak joke helped me make my point quite well. Thanks.

---

No, we are not doing what you do. We think. You feel.

I've seen no evidence of you thinking.

---

Who needs science when they can refer to applied bullshit instead?

I think my argument is good. Richard Dawkins does. You can't. You delude yourself out of self interest.